## Facts

- Robert Inlow executed a deed conveying a 287-acre farm to his second wife (Freda Evelyn Inlow) and three children (Patricia Graham, Charles W. Inlow, and Carol J. Inlow), giving each a one-fourth interest.
- After an earlier appeal upheld the deed’s validity, the case returned to chancery court for partition-related proceedings.
- Freda, who had been associated with the property’s management and upkeep, made repairs and other improvements to existing structures on the farm and sought compensation.
- Patricia Graham filed a partition action seeking division of the cotenancy interests and related accountings.
- On remand, the chancellor found the farm could not be partitioned in kind and ordered a judicial sale.
- The chancellor awarded Graham certain rents and timber-sale proceeds accruing after the partition suit began, and also awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
- The chancellor awarded Freda $70,000 for improvements, relying on common-law principles analogous to Arkansas’s betterment concepts.
- Freda’s valuation proof, through an expert, addressed values attributed to individual buildings and generalized contribution of structures, but did not provide a before-and-after valuation of the farm as a whole.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancellor erred in awarding $70,000 for improvements without evidence of the amount by which the improvements enhanced the value of the property as a whole.
2. Whether a cotenant out of possession may recover rents and timber proceeds for periods before filing a partition action, absent an earlier demand for shared enjoyment or an accounting.
3. Whether attorney’s fees and costs were properly awarded and allocated in the partition proceedings.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
- The court reversed and remanded the $70,000 improvements award because the proof did not establish the enhanced value of the entire farm attributable to the improvements.
- The court affirmed limiting Graham’s recovery of rents and timber proceeds to the period after commencement of the partition action.
- The court largely affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs associated with the partition, subject to recalculation or adjustment consistent with the remand on improvements.

## Legal Principles

- Compensation for improvements in a partition/cotenancy context is limited to the amount by which the improvements enhance the value of the property as a whole, not the cost of the improvements or value assigned building-by-building in isolation.
- A claimant seeking reimbursement for improvements must present valuation evidence comparing the entire property’s value before and after the improvements.
- In a tenancy in common, a cotenant in possession generally is not liable to other cotenants for rent or profits from exclusive occupancy absent an assertion of the nonpossessing cotenant’s rights (such as a demand or the filing of an action seeking partition or accounting).
- In partition proceedings, courts may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when the action effectuates partition or sale and benefits the cotenancy by clarifying and distributing interests.

## Conclusion

The court held that an improvements award in a partition dispute must be supported by evidence of enhanced value to the entire tract and reversed the award for lack of such proof, while affirming that rents and timber proceeds were recoverable only from the filing of the partition action and generally upholding fees and costs associated with the partition.


Graham v. Inlow, 790 S.W.2d 428 (Ark. 1990)